четвъртък, 14 април 2011 г.

Theistic Evolution And The Orthodox Theology

Is it possible to look for the
judgment of the Bible and the holy saints of the Church regarding a number of
scientific, moral and ethical issues, posed in our times, such as creation and
evolution, cloning, abortion, etc.? Unfortunately, a big part of the Christians
interpret the aforementioned authorities wrongly, so that they can adjust them
to some syncretic points of view, which seem to reconcile secular views with
Heavenly commandments.[1] But here is what St. James (God's brother) tells us
in his message: "You adulterous people! Don't you know that friendship
with the world is hatred towards God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the
world becomes an enemy of God." (James 4:4).

In this article we shall look at the
consequences of the so called theistic-evolutionary doctrine, according to
which God has programmed the development of the matter in ascending line - from
the simple to the complex, from the dead to the living, from the lower to the
higher forms of life. More famous supporters of this standpoint are G. Altner,
K. F.von Weizsäcker, I.
Ilies, H. Rorbach, and others. The greatest merit for the formulation of the
"Christian evolutionism" has the French Jesuit priest, paleontologist
and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881 - 1955). He draws the
development of the Universe as a process of the "cosmogenesis", which
however he reduces to evolution of the spirit, giving it a teleological
interpretation. According to him, the opportunities for the development of the
spirit at the expense of the complicating of the individual's organism have
been depleted with the origin of man, and further progress should be made on a
"collective" base. De Chardin considers science as "supreme act
of collective vision" and views science as a variety of religious attitude
towards reality, which will speed up evolution.

But the Creation described in
chapter one of the Bible is entirely a supernatural process, whereas evolution
passes in total agreement with natural laws. According to some authors,
"the theistic evolutionist is trying to ride simultaneously two horses,
which gallop in opposite directions". The contemporary official position
of the Vatican accepts this unprincipled synthesis between the natural
philosophy and the traditional Christian theology as a scientific explanation
for the Creation. Unfortunately, there are also many Orthodox scientists and
theologians who have moved to (or are approximating) this liberal standpoint
lately. As an example we could point the Russian professors I. M. Andreev,
archbishop Michael (Mudyugin), archpriest Vasilii Zenkovskii, the Serbian
theologians archpriest Stefan Lyashevski and professor Lazar Milin, the
prominent Romanian priest Dimitru Staniloe, and others.

As we have already pointed out,
according to this view God created matter by setting objective laws, that
result in the arrangement of that matter into celestial systems, living
organisms, and finally in the emerging of the reasonable human being.
Generally, this could happen in two ways: 1) through the mechanisms of Darwin's
evolutionary process; or 2) by some arranging relations that spontaneously
organize the universe (i.e. synergetic type of evolution).

First option. Darwin's model could be applied for
the inanimate, as well as for the animate nature. Let us imagine that we have
an infinite multitude of universes that are separated from one another. The
matter in each of them is constantly moving and changing, and the survival of the
fittest retains those, that come to a steady dynamic equilibrium. Then,
among a huge number of disordered celestial systems, there will be one, in
which the cosmic bodies are in wonderful harmony. If we dispose of enough
number of the latter, we could hope that somewhere there could be found also
planets with appropriate conditions for living. We could presume that on part
of them living organisms are also emerging (and here goes the same argument -
among a big number of transitional forms there will be a few sustainable
species). And on even a smaller number of celestial bodies evolution will
result in the development of intelligent creatures.[2]

The following objections arise in
that scenario: First, where in the Bible was it described that God has created
such an enormous ocean of chaos, so that small islands of order could arise by
chance in it? Secondly, why the intermediate links are missing in the
paleontological recording, as well as among the contemporary species? On the
third place, one should expect that on other planets in the cosmos there will
be intelligent civilizations (something that is again in contradiction with the
Holy Writ[3]). And, fourthly, if the matter is dialectically developing and
perfecting, it will be in a condition to reach the indicated result even
without God's interference. (Thus, His existence could be fully ignored as
well.) It was not by chance that Charles Darwin said: "I would not have
been interested in the least in the theory of the natural selection, if it had
required the addition of some miracle, at whichever stage of its
development".[4] Julian Huxley adds: "To postulate a Divine
interference with these exchanges of matter and energy at a particular moment
in the earth’s history is both unnecessary and illogical."[5]

Second option. (In this paragraph we will repeat
what has already been said on the question in Chapter VI of the book). A
spontaneous arranging of the matter could be observed at the formation of the
electron layers of atoms, the beautiful spatial grids of crystal bodies, Benard
Cells, the putting together of viruses, etc. For example, if a beam of
electrons is passed in a proximity to a stripped nucleus of some chemical
element, part of those electrons will be kept around the nucleus and will
automatically form the stable configuration of the electron shell of the atom.
By analogue, some assume that there might still exist a number of undiscovered
laws, that help for the structuring of the cosmos as well. If that is really
so, we could establish their existence quite easily. It would be enough to
launch the space aircrafts with arbitrary directions and speeds, and since they
would succeed every time to become satellites of the Sun or of some other
planet, we could assume that the celestial systems are self-organizing. But the
experience shows that such an ordering, alas, is not happening. Also, even if
we mix in a suitable solution all the chemical elements that build the cells in
the necessary quantities and proportions, they will not join together into a living
organism. In the genetic program no possibility is discovered for saltatory
ascending transmutation of the species, for instance to have chickens hatched
from snake's eggs. The aforesaid points that God has not set ordering
relations, which could spontaneously organize all the spheres of our world; and
in order to achieve harmony in cosmos, for the origin of life and its variety,
a special creative act was required.

Some contemporary proponents of the
theistic evolution view state that God has interfered only from time to time
within the normal course of development, in order to assist in the fulfillment
of a number of insurmountable obstacles in front of the evolution - the origin
of the genetic code, the origin of the bigger taxonomy units, the conscious
activity of human beings, etc. But He has allowed for the natural processes to
act in the interim periods of the geologic history. Such position is
incoherent: either we should accept that God has been smart enough to set an
autonomous mechanism in the development of the matter leading finally to the
origin of human being, or, if he has interfered - why shouldn't He had created
at the very beginning everything in order and in completed form? Furthermore,
every time we refer to supernatural causes, the concept of theistic evolution
becomes a non-scientific one. So our attempt to unify religion with science
becomes futile. For this reason, many theologians claim that such a doctrine
(in all its different scenarios and modifications ) is a preposterous
compromise between Christianity and Darwinism.

The contradictions between the
Biblical stand-point and the evolutionist theory are in two major directions:

А) The physical aspect.

Description
of the Creation

Evolutionist
presumptions

1.
In the beginning God created the Earth, then the Sun, the Moon and the stars.

1.
We have molecular gas clouds, from which stars are being formed. Planetary
systems are then formed around these stars.

2.
The planet was covered with water, which, by order of God, withdrew and the
continents emerged. I.e. the ocean preceded the raising of the dry land.

2.
Heated fire globe with water steams in the atmosphere. When the Earth cooled
down, dry land is formed, and later on water falls down as rain and fills in
the seas. Originally, water came on Earth by comets.

3.
Plants existed before the Sun.[6]

3.
Plants originated much later than the Sun.

4.
The creation of terrestrial animals followed that of the birds.

4.
The terrestrial animals and the reptiles have developed before the birds.

5.
Some terrestrial mammals go back to live in water for the second time.

6.
Living creatures were created according to their species.

6.
All organisms evolve constantly into one another.

7.
God created man from soil, in His own image and likeness.

7.
Human beings evolved from primates.

Table 1.

The Christian-evolutionists claim
that the narrative in the Genesis should be interpreted allegorically. But the
personifications in the poetic books of the Bible, in the proverbs of our God,
and even in the mystic revelations of the prophets are based on analogy, and
not on contradiction. A comparison between the order of the processes fulfilled
in the physical world shows that there cannot be any unification between the
Creation and the evolution theories.[7]

B) The spiritual aspect.

The theistic doctrine of the evolution
comes into contradiction also with basic Christian dogmas:

1) Distortion of God's essence.

According to the Holy Writ, God is
possessed by love, compassion and wisdom (І John 4:8; Exodus 22:27; Psalm
104:24). He remained faithful to Himself also with the Creation, since He does
not "change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17; Hebrews 13:8). He who
looks at the Omnipotent as an author of the evolutionist strategy that is
marked by suffering, cruelty and death, he distorts His essence. Therefore, it
is no wonder that materialists like Hoimar von Ditfurth pose the question:
"How could … God be justified for creating a world, that from the very
beginning was full of all kinds of sufferings - pain, fears, and diseases? If
the world is God's making, how did evil come into it? … Any believer should
find an answer for himself to the question - how do we bring into line the
imperfection of the world with God's omnipotence".[8]

The famous French biologist and
atheist Jacques Monod (a Nobel Prize winner) tells us the same: "The
struggle for life and the elimination of the weakest is a horrible process … I am surprised that a Christian would defend
the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to
have evolution ".[9]

The truth is that it was a wonderful
world at the beginning - love, joy and peace reigned everywhere. "And God saw all that he had made, and
it was very good." (Genesis.
1:31). It was after the original sin that Adam heard the dreadful words: "Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toll you will eat of it all the days of your life …" (Genesis 3:17).

2) Stultifying Christ's act of
redemption.

In the struggle for life hatred,
aggression and killing ensure survival of the fittest and consequently lead the
development of pre-historic humans towards progress. Something more, the
liberal theologist Wolfgang Böhme goes as far as presenting even sin as a
necessary evolutionary factor: "Isn't sin a rather external phenomenon in
the great process of evolution, or maybe - a necessary phenomenon, if
development has to move onward? … Teilhard de Chardin thought that sin
accompanies the evolutionary process perforce, that it is "the risk"
and "the shadow", that every creation carries in itself."[10]
As someone has aptly said: "Monkeys' descendants do not need a
Saviour".

But how could we combine all this
with the moral laws, love and the self-sacrifice willingness, commanded in the
Bible and perfectly fulfilled in the life of our God Jesus Christ?!

3) Regular consequences of the evolutionary
doctrine.

As we have marked before, the theory
of evolution carried out consistently eliminates the necessity of a Creator. If
matter is in a state to self-organize itself, it is clear that the possibility
for the existence of God could be deduced to zero. Darwin himself came up with
the same conclusion: "Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate,
but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and
have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was
correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be
true …"[11]

The historian of biology professor
William Provine from the Cornell University (who is a convinced evolutionist),
witnesses our thesis: "Of course, it is still possible to believe in both
modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian
God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the
laws of nature (or both) ... [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals,
answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever
that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern
evolutionary biology only … if the religion is effectively indistinguishable
from atheism."[12]

In that sense, many theologians
claim, that there are no supernatural events in the Bible, since that would
require the direct intervention of God in nature, in our life and in human
history. But if that is so, then Jesus Christ is not God, came down to Earth in
flesh. He didn't perform any miracles and wonders. Most importantly, the
Ressurection of Christ did not happen. St. Paul answers to such misconceptions
with: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so
is your faith. More than that, we are
then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God
that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the
dead are not raised....Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are
lost. " (1 Corinthians 15:14-18 )[13]

4) "The fool says in his heart:
There is no God." (Psalm 13:1).

"If there is no God, then
everything is permitted!" - with these ominous words the great Russian
writer Fiodor Dostoevski warns us about the anarchy, the terror and the
lawlessness that occur in society as a consequence of atheism. Darwinism has
influenced the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche who pronounced the
"struggle for existence", developing into "will for power".
It is not by chance that his political concepts assisted for strengthening the
position of the fascists ideology, that is characterized by racism, extreme
chauvinism, and antihumanism. The evolutionary theory was raised in the rank of
a "state religion" also in the ex-communist countries. Hitler's and Stalin's
regimes have unleashed the Second World War, destroyed in this war and in the
concentration camps tens of millions of human lives and demolished almost the
whole of Europe. Therefore, we ask ourselves how it is possible at all for some
people to integrate the evolutionary theory with Christianity???!!![14]

The materialistic way of thinking
lead also to promiscuous sexual relations, abortions, homosexualism, drug
habits, avarice, increasing crime. Archimandrite Yustin Popovich speaks about
the logical end at the retreat of the modern society from Christianity:
"Withered, driven by material comforts, degenerated, the humanist man is
fully right, when through his sages, announces that he has come from the
monkey. Once being leveled with the animals in relation to his origin, why
should not he equal with them also in relation to his morals? Even sin and
crime are considered as inevitable in society and natural necessity by modern
justice. ... It could not be different, because only the sensation of immortality
could give birth to morals that are senior to the animals' drive."
"In other words, evolution appears to be a license for the patent of the
easy way of life, given to mankind by the "prince of this world" -
the Antichrist" - summarized P. Budzilovich.

5) The Christian view of the
Creation.

From Jesus' words in Matthew 19:4
and of St. Apostle Paul - II Corinthians. 11:3 it is evident that they both
trusted Moses' testimony for the events that had occurred in the Garden of
Eden.[15] In an extensive work of his, hieromonk Seraphime Rose proves, that
all the significant holy fathers of the church supported the creationist
viewpoint. Such pillars of Orthodoxy as St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of
Jerusalem, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene,
and many others, have not considered the Biblical story of the creation as a
myth, legend, or allegory, but have taken it as truthful. Taking into
consideration their constant battle for the purity of faith, we should not
doubt even for a moment that they would qualify the theistic evolution doctrine
as a craftly masked "disastrous heresy".[16]

Christianity does not need to
compromise with each contemporary but unsubstantiated "scientific"
ideology, only to appear developing and modern. Today, leading authorities, one
after the other, begin to give up the evolution theory, since all their efforts
to prove their theses "always come to a dead end" (see
"Introduction"). Therefore, isn't it time to ask ourselves whether, being
Orthodox Christians, we should always be so naive as to take any bait thrown by
the secular philosophy? Let us remind ourselves what happened when the Catholic
church standpoint (borrowed from the ancient Greek men of thought) that is
Earth is flat, motionless, and that the Sun, the planets and the stars go
around it, was refuted. The opponents of the Holy Writ have found the long
searched occasion to renounce its Divine origin. Wouldn't it be the same again,
if we support the doctrine of the evolution, which is now seriously
discredited?[17]

Finally, we will end with a quote from the book of the informatics
professor Werner Gitt "Did God use evolution" (page 104):
"Atheism can be recognized immediately, independent of the philosophical
attire it appears in, as an anti-God and anti-Biblical school, so that it is
not directly dangerous for Christians. But the situation is quite different in
the case of conceptual structures which, by Jesus words, appear in sheep's
clothing, but "inwardly they are ferocious wolves" (Matthew 7:15). In
the case of theistic evolution Christian concepts are readily integrated.
However, such teachings reduce the message of the Bible to insignificance and
come as "savage wolves" who "will not spare the flock"
(Acts 20:29). One example of this is the theistic evolutionary doctrine. All
systems which entice us away from the true gate (Jesus) into the sheep pen, are
called thieves and robbers by Jesus (John 10:1). … For this reason the Bible
warns repeatedly: "See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and
deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition …" (Col
2:8).

[1] Syncretism - reconciliation,
combining between different, often contrary philosophic and/or religious
schools on the grounds of their points of contact only.

[2] Human imagination is not even
able to imagine how enormous the number of universes should be, so that the
above scenario can be fulfilled. If the Universe is only one, then the
statistical probability that intelligent life appers in it is insignificantly
small and practically not feasible. This (together with the lack of observed
signals from intelligent extra-terrestrial civilziations) was also the most
important prerequisite that made the famous Soviet astro-physicist I. S.
Shklovski to give up the hypothesis for extra-terrestrial civilizations. I
wonder why, however, he did not ask himself: "How then, our own
civilization did appear?!"

[3] Some scientists-Christians'
reasoning is as follows: "God has presented to us quite specific
elucidations regarding the future - for example, the return of Jesus and a
number of details about the end of the world. In a moment to come the Universe
will shrink as a scroll, the present Earth and heaven will pass away, and new
ones will be created (Isaiah 34:4; ІІ Peter 3:12-13; Revelation 21:1). If God
had created intelligent civilizations elsewhere, this would have destroyed also
the place where they live. Adam's sin became a reason for the whole creation to
be judged, so why should a race of beings that are not of Adam's (sinful)
posterity suffer from the punishment and after that be part of the restoration,
which will come with Christ?!

The reasons for the origin of the
stars are particularly pointed to us in the narrative about the Creation. In
Genesis 1:14 we read: "And God said:
"Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from
the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and
years." God made the stars for mankind, and not for another
civilization "somewhere out there". Add to this also the sequence of
the events (on the first days our planet, and only on the fourth day - the
stars) and you will see the power of the Biblical proof that the purpose of the
creation is uniquely focused on the Earth.

[6] Of course, the question arises
"how did the plants survive without the Sun?". Let us remind,
however, that God has created the light on the very first day and it provided
the necessary temperature and energy for the photosynthesis. A remainder of
this primary light is perhaps the so called relic radiation, which the
scientists interpret as a proof of the Big Bang.

[7] The scientific hypothesis of the
Steady State Theory by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi was the dominant one by the middle of the XXth century. We
wouldn't be surprised if some of the theologians of that time have
"proved" (in agreement with the theory), that, allegorically
speaking, according to Moises the Universe, the Earth, all living creatures and
man have always existed (without the need for being created), just the same as
the Creator.

Furthermore, there is a high
probability that the data from the WMAP space probe, put to orbit in 2001,
prove the cyclical model of the Universe of Steinhardt–Turok (bur for a flat Universe). In that case,
today we have to conclude that the Bible and the philosophical-religious
systems of India present the same – that God creates and destroys the word in a
process of an infinite number of repeating cosmic cycles.

[11] In 1851 Darwin was devastated
by the death of his ten year old daughter Annie. By then his faith in
Christianity had dwindled and he had stopped going to church. In 1879 (i.e. at
the very end of his life - 1882) at a question that was posed to him he
answered, that he had never been an atheist in the sense of someone who denies
the existence of God, and that in principle "an agnostic would be the most
correct description of my state of mind"

A little while before his demise,
however, he wrote to a friend of his: "I am sorry to have to inform you
that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, and therefore not in
Jesus Christ as the Son of God"

According to doctor Croft, after
Darwin's death, his family has purposely destroyed many of his documents, in
order to hide Darwin's aversion to Christianity. (Lawrence R. Croft, The
Life and Death of Charles Darwin (Chorley: Elmwood Booksq 1989) p. 95. See
also Russel Grigg, Darwin`s Arguments Against God, 13 June 2008,
at: creationontheweb.com)

[12] William B. Provine, Book review
in Academe, January/ February, 1987, pp, 50-52.
Prof. Provine states that the theistic evolution theory in fact leads to deism. According to this view at the
beginning God created the matter, setting in it some program, which would allow
the world to self-construct itself. Later on, however, he did not interfere at
all in its development, neither in human history. Therefore, in practice deism
could not be differentiated from atheism.

[13] The evolutionary doctrine,
apart from being in thorough discord with the Bible, is not confirmed by
science at all. The best response to the question why the evolutionary theory
is still taught in the secondary and higher school in the USA, was provided by
Phillip E. Johnson, PhD, professor in jurisprudence with the University of
California, in his book "Darwin on trial": "Most professors continue
to teach evolution in the universities out of fear. This fear is that of not
being tenured, of not getting research grants, of not being published, and of
not being accepted by their peers. So, to be accepted, to be published, to be
granted research money, and to be tenured by their university, they must follow
the party line, which is evolution. This is how the academic game is
played." (and not only in America - A/N V.V.).

A great part of the contemporary
Christian-scientists have solved this complicated dilemma between faith and
science, compromising with their conscience, in order to admit the theistic
evolution doctrine. Thus not only could they make progress in the hierarchy as
evolutionists, but they could also hope, as Christians, that one day they will
go to heaven. St. Apostle Paul does not hide his sorrow from similar believers,
who "only want to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ"
(Galatians 6:12).

[14] In his article "Orthodoxy
and evolution" dean Andrey Kuraev tries to prove that the theistic evolution
is compatible with Orthodox theology. In the quoted material, though, there are
too much unsubstantiated statements; in view of that we will focus separately
on its refutation. The reader can get familiar with it on the site:

To this moment, no one has ever
succeeded in combining the evolutionary theory with the Biblical record. All
attempts to do this are a grotesque exegetic caricature. The Dutch jesuit
Stephanus Trooster writes candidly in his book "Evolution and the doctrine
of original sin": "Those who treat seriously the scientific dogma
of evolution, could not agree with the traditional treatment ( not only of the
Creation, but of the Fall of man and, therefore, of the rest of the religious
dogmas - A/N V.V.). Thus we should find an interpretation, suitable to our
modern times."

[15] Some claim that "God has
made the human being deriving from the monkey through evolution, but this was
omitted in the Bible".

The holy evangelists Matthew and
Luke, having traced back Jesus' genealogy go back to Adam (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke
3:23-38). According to the above view, Adam should have been an Australopitek,
the succeeding generation turned into Pitecanthropus, further in Neanderthals,
and only some of the last genealogy branches perhaps became Cro-Magnons. (If
one trusts a popular image of Jesus, reconstructed after a skull of His time
that was found and broadcast by BBC, He should have kept to a considerable
degree His resemblance to the Neanderthals, which fully supports the theistic
theory.

St. evangelist Luke, however,
clearly states that "Adam is the son of God", i.e. the first man was
immediately created by God, as it was written: "the Lord God formed the
man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and the man became a living being". (Luke 3:38; Genesis. 2:7).
(Unfortunately, there are a few supporters of that view, claiming that "
dust of the ground" is figuratively speaking for "living creatures,
that existed before that moment".
But in that case the words "for dust you are and to dust you will
return" (Genesis 3:19) should mean, that after our death we are again
turned into some kind of animal so that kind of teaching leads us directly to
the idea of reincarnation!?)

[16] Refer to priest Seraphime
Rose's book "The Orthodox View of Evolution".

Many Orthodox theologians are skeptical
towards some of the ideas of priest
Seraphime Rose. Let us note however, that, in his book "Genesis,
Creation, and Early Man: The Orthodox Patristic Understanding”, he presents
objectively the view of the holy saints on Creation.

[17] In 2006 over 600 scientists
with high academical degrees from some of the most prestigious universities
around the world (scientists that for sure could not claim to be mislead by
creationists) sign the anti-Darwin declaration "Scientific Dissent from
Darwin". Based on their own work, many of these experts independently
derive the same conclusion, namely that "results from scientific
experiments, carried in the last years in different fields: cosmology, physics,
biology, AI etc.,...cast doubt on the main dogma of evolution – natural
selection". If all those scientists are right (and their number is ever
increasing and has even doubled for the last 6-7 years) then, although it may
sound astonishing, we will have the same twist of history as with Galileo.
Indeed, we will see that so far we have been proposing a false model and this
will discredit us in front of the society.